Intro

Based on what I've been told by admins:

My editing was not problematic, or the admins have no opinion on the nature of my edits.
I engaged in behavior that was contrary to the spirit of working together and consensus.
There has been no indication that my "battlefield" behavior was in any way worse than others.
I inappropriately filed reports for relatively minor incidents.

Item #4 is the reason why I got a 6-month ban.

Conflict resolution and wikipedia process

I fully acknowledge that I inappropriately filed incident reports, but I deny that there was anything nefarious about that action.

I participate elsewhere in a community culture where conflict resolution happens based on a principle of "intervene early; intervene gently". The community believes early reminder from a leader of "please do better" can prevent conflicts from escalating and exploding. In my original ANI you can see me asking Johnuniq to do exactly this:

"I'm still learning these processes, but I think I'd like someone from a position of authority to give her an official reminder that she needs to play nice and obey the civility rules."

And Johnuniq was the one who suggested that I take issues to WP:AE if the behavior was "excessive":

"...only problem would be making a fuss (e.g. by repeating the claim excessively) as it is an issue for WP:AE."

However... I am now acutely aware that "intervene early" is not how wikipedia operates. I promise to not engage in this behavior again.

Seeking advice

I'm not going to make the same mistake again. But I still do not fully understand the proper way of proceeding within wikipedia's frameworks. I would appreciate your thoughts and suggestions:

1) Huldra said I should be banned for creating a page. She then harangued me elsewhere on wikipedia, claiming she was going to fight me until I conceded to her demands. At what point would it be appropriate to bring behavior like this to ANI or AE?

2) Nableezy engaged in behavior that I personally felt crossed the line into harassment. He has acknowledged that this behavior wasn't perfect, and that he'll try to do better in the future. However prior to the AE he did not show any willingness to do anything differently in response to multiple messages in article talk pages, a message on his wall, and he rejected an offer to join me in mediation. What would have a constructive next step looked like here?

Battling

I acknowledge that #2 is true, but I dispute that it represents a tendency of how I generally work on wikipedia.

I think my failures in working together and consensus were mostly, if not entirely, in direct response to a group of editors who appeared dead set on pushing through their particular agenda, and they seem like they are going to keep pushing this agenda irrespective of what RS said, or the amount of coverage by RS. I did find it extremely frustrating.

I promise in the future, to try to move beyond the frustration and work harder in the spirit of working together and consensus.

And I think I already have an established a history operating in the spirit of collaboration and consensus. Please take a look at the examples below.

Examples

Here are some examples of how I generally work with others in helping make wikipedia better.

Case Study 1 - Celebrating disagreement

In the David Collier AFD, Ravenswing spent time and effort review all of the sources. Based upon that he came to the opposite conclusion than I did. He voted "delete".

My response to his opposition was to send him a thank you note: "Cheers to respectful disagreements"

My interest is fairness, balance, and thoughtful analysis not pushing a POV.

Case Study 2 - Pushing for one answer, then compromising for a win-win

I thought the 2020 Kamchatka Earthquake was notable and the page well written. I wanted to keep it. Dora strongly disagreed and argued her case well. I tried to support my case, constructively, by locating and adding additional sources, and by creating a sources table. This was not done as a "battle" to win; it was done in the spirit of improving wikipedia.

The AFD sat as a stalemate, then one user suggested a merge. I signed onto that idea, but suggested a different merge target. My version of the compromise was the final decision in what I hope was a win-win compromise for all.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2020_Kamchatka_earthquake

Case Study 3 - Encouraging Balance with Nableezy

Two instances of the Gaza Flotilla Raid page:

1. Nableezy suggested that a pro-Israel image be removed from the article. I didn't fight him on that, but I responded by saying that another image should be treated by the same standards. I then modified my views, suggesting we take both images to a non-biased admin who was more familiar with the intricacies of the fair-use rules for media. This is what happened and I think it was fair for all.

2. Nableezy complained that a section of the article was heavily biased in favor of Israel and he wanted to balance it out. I supported him in this, telling him "sounds good to me". I told him there, and I'm telling you now "You may not believe me, but my interest is actually in making sure that both sides of the story are honestly told."

When people are willing to work with me to create balance, or express a desire to create balance, I celebrate it.

Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid

Case Study 4 - Helping a new user

A page for a major Palestinian insurance company came up for deletion. Looking at the sources in the article, it very clearly failed CORPDEPTH. It was also clear that the creator of the page was passionate about it and wanted to keep the article. In order to try to help them, I made a good faith effort to search for sources but found nothing in English. I didn't just vote "DELETE", but made it clear that if anyone found any sources in Arabic, and I still believe they very well might exist, I would be happy to change my mind.

The next couple of editors mirrored my lead. It ended up getting deleted, but this was an example of me trying to help new users move in the right direction instead of discouraging them by just shouting delete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamkeen_Insurance_Company

Case Study 5 - Extending an olive branch

On the David Collier page, Selfstudier wanted to get rid of a sentence which factually stated that Jeremy Corbyn had been removed as a basis on an investigation. I wanted to keep it because it spoke of the importance of that investigation; David Collier's report wasn't just part of some random investigation, it was a part of an investigation that had global impacts.

To solve an impasse, I reached out with an olive branch suggesting a compromise where we would get rid of the sentence he wanted gone, but partially solve my issue by including a wikilink to the article which discussed the investigation in depth.

His response was to refuse to agree to anything, because he felt doing so would add legitimacy to the page, but at least I was trying.

Conclusion

With no nefarious intent, I made a mistake violating a rule. I promise not to repeat the mistake.

AmirahBreen also violated a rule, for which he got a 3 day ban. He immediately repeated the same violation, at which point he got a 1 month ban from a page. Looking at this as precedent, my 6-month topic ban based upon a mistake which I promise not to repeat seems completely disproportionate.

As I understand it, the motivation for enforcement actions should be to inspire change, and I think you've accomplished that. Thus I ask that this enforcement be dramatically reduced.